Miller v. Dugan et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 13 Motion to Compel. Further directing Plaintiff to file any Response to Defendant's Motion on or before 5/31/12. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on May 24, 2012. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION JOHN EDWARD MILLER V. PLAINTIFF Case No. 2:11-CV-02129 KEVIN R. DUGAN; JERROD WAYNE SCOTT; and CITY OF BARLING DEFENDANTS ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Depositions (Doc. 13) and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 14). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Defendants to present for depositions on May 29, 2012. It appearing to the Court that the parties did not finally and mutually agree to hold Defendants’ depositions on May 29, or any other specific date, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 13) should be and hereby is DENIED. The Court declines to compel either party to attend a deposition on any specific date at this time. Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ recently-filed Motion to Compel. (Doc. 15). Given the proximity of the discovery deadline,1 and in the interest of resolving the issues presented in a timely manner, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any Response to Defendants’ Motion on or before May 31, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2012. 1 A Final Scheduling Order (Doc. 9) has been entered in this case, setting a discovery deadline of July 7, 2012. The parties are reminded that, pursuant to that Order, the Court generally will not a grant a continuance because a party does not have time in which to depose a witness. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?